Is “Design and Build” suitable for social housing projects in the UK housing crisis?

Purpose: Design and build (DB) and traditional contracting (TC) are the two dominant procurement methods used in the UK. Despite widespread use, there is a lack of research into the benefits and limitations of DB when applied to social housing projects. This research investigates whether DB is more appropriate for social housing than TC in the current housing crisis and provides guidance upon its implementation. Design/methodology/approach: Eight expert interviews and six multiple-case studies were conducted to collect empirical evidence to validate the hypotheses, with thematic analysis for analysing qualitative data. Findings: DB is now the predominant procurement route for new-build social housing projects. Practitioners suggest DB suits new builds rather than complex refurbishment, which generate multiple variations and cost unpredictability. A more sophisticated form of DB, novated DB, allows for the implementation of two-stage tendering for project delivery which provides cost, time and quality certainty when compared with TC. Research limitations/implications: This research is based upon empirical work conducted in the West Midlands. Further research should be undertaken nationwide so that results can represent the whole UK. Practical implications: Novated DB implemented with two-stage tendering should be adopted for social housing production but not for complex refurbishment. Social implications: Housing associations should review their current procurement policies to decide whether a form of novated DB should be adopted to expedite housing supply. Originality/value: Novated DB implemented through a two-stage tendering is a preferred option to tackle the housing crisis due to its cost, time and quality certainty in new builds.